AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

Like I just mentioned above, PHX is a much better gateway for places like Burbank as they have natural traffic demand and more economic being mere 1-hour flight away, unlike Dallas halfway across the country.

CLD wouldn't be served from DFW...it would have to be LAX, LAS, PHX, or SFO. The only two of those I could see happening would be LAX or PHX. But considering the only airline that flies to CLD is Skywest under UAX branding. I don't see a return.

DFW to FAT - 112 pax per day - maybe
DFW to OAK - 94 pax per day - already WN served DAL - OAK - probably not, too long and thin, let WN have it.
DWF to SBP - 21 pax per day - no
DFW to BUR - 41 pax per day - no
DFW to EUG - 25 pax per day - no
DFW to MFR - 21 pax per day - no
DFW to GEG - 156 pax per day - okay chance
DFW to FRM - huh? Fairmont Minnesota?
DFW - CLD - >10 pax per day - no.

Why are you basing your decision on O&D stats? AA has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.

Quoting whatusaid (Reply 6):FAT-DFW needs more seats not less. The Ejet might be an option for a 3rd RT off season but that's about it.

During the spring/summer/early fall tourist season an Ejet flight to DFW would be great. Timed like the 3rd MD80 was a few years back..about a 9 am departure and then you could move the evening mainline to a 7PM departure and the E to a 9pm DFW departure!

AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

Because many flights will probably switch over to DFW from PHX, and BUR would most likely be such a route. I know that AA cut their BUR-DFW flight just a year or two ago, but I still believe that they could shift over one of the around 10 daily LAX-DFW flights and make it work out of BUR.

And here is another reason;

Quoting EricR (Reply 9): has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.

AA just dropped the DFW route. Obviously if there was some hope for it, they would have stuck around knowing under BK they would be reducing their cost.

BUR is the main route I could see switching back to DFW, for several reasons. First, DFW is obviously a far larger hub with far higher connectivity. Second, DFW now offers the same traffic flows as PHX does, but AA will now have one less competitor (US) fighting for east-bound customers, which should help. And finally, there is a healthy local market DFW-BUR due to local corporate connections.

I obviously don't know for sure, but I would not at all be surprised to see BUR switch back to DFW from PHX.

You make it sound as if it was a remote possibility that PHX remains a hub. The fact is that PHX will be THE western hub in the new AA route network, whereas LAX will remain the international gateway - which won't preclude PHX from getting some intercontinental flights to OneWorld hub airports and a couple of others, too. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to scale PHX back, nor are there any plans to do so.

"Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes forever skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." -Leonardo Da Vinci

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group

Quoting PHX+Flyer" class="quote" target="_blank">PHX Flyer (Reply 14):You make it sound as if it was a remote possibility that PHX remains a hub. The fact is that PHX will be THE western hub in the new AA route network, whereas LAX will remain the international gateway - which won't preclude PHX from getting some intercontinental flights to OneWorld hub airports and a couple of others, too. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to scale PHX back, nor are there any plans to do so.

Is that the 'fact'? And how can you be so certain that there are no plans to do so with the merger still in such primitive stages? Is your statement anything outside of speculation? Because it seems quite reasonable that much of the connection and origin activity would be moved from PHX to DFW.

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

The reason for a scale back is not because combined traffic is diminishing, it's because many cities from PHX are better served through DFW. There is no need for redundancy.

It is cheaper for AA to funnel US passengers through its DFW hub as opposed to having two hubs serving the same purpose.

DFW will see some growth and up-gauging. PHX will see some cuts and down-gauging because of traffic shifting through to DFW.

That being said, I don't see PHX being dismanteled completely. It will still have a role in the network, just not as big.

Quoting EricR (Reply 9):Why are you basing your decision on O&D stats? AA has 700+ daily flights out of DFW. If AA decides to fly these routes ex-DFW, it will be based more so on connecting traffic than solely on local O&D just like many routes out of DFW.

O&D is where the money is. I think that as carriers go forward, if they don't plan according to what the O&D is, then I predict they will have $$$$ problems. Connects will probably be getting somewhat less attention going forward, and if there isn't $$$$ to be earned from them, carriers shouldn't be catering to them...... And if O&D isn't supporting 700+ daily flights at DWF, then they'll need to cut flights until they do. And this goes for any hub.

There may be some exceptions, which I'll allow for, but I'll even go to say that if at any carrier on its domestic routes, at least 90% of these flights aren't at least 80%+ full and earning a decent local RPM, and then of that 80%+ l/f at least 50% isn't local O&D traffic, then a flight shouldn't be in the schedule.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

Are we serious right now? a;ll you have to do is take 10 minutes out of your day to watch this video.They clearly say that the O&D market is way bigger in PHX than in PIT or STL etc. PHX will remain a hub and the company said so to a board,mayor and congressmen.If your willing to blatantly lie to a congressman and mayor of the 5th largest city in the country,well that just describes yourself.

No it won't. The combined traffic that AA and US already enjoy isn't diminishing, and US clearly needs PHX for both connections and O&D. The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

I'm sure the folks at STL said the same thing...

And they'd have probably been right, had 9/11 and two recessions not occurred.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group

When I see PHX being downsized, it think it will possibly be frequency and some markets east past DFW. WN would pick up any PHX to California cancellations.

Unlike CLT, I do see the possibility to scale back PHX and recapture traffic via DFW. I could see value in PHX but along the size of DL in SLC. There is a local market from California to PHX but fares are low. PHX more than any other hub will see it future decided on how high AA costs go. The ability to raise fares in PHX is less than anywhere else.

US sends a lot of people from TUS into PHX for connections. AA runs a sizable operation from TUS to DFW and a couple of flights a day to ORD. PHX will be a beter fit for those traveling to hear-by states North-East and West. DFW will be better for South, Midwest and East Coast connections. The new AA will have to right size the PHX hub.

PHX works now for US but a combined AA/US PHX will not work as good as it does now. US puts 70% connecting thru PHX and only around 30% O/D the combined AA/US will have higher costs and to fly people from the west coast to midwest/south it will be cheaper to use DFW. PHX will be down 20% in 2 years and in 5 they will be down 30% in flights.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):In cities where AA pulled out of like BUR, SBP, OAK and others that they don't service at all like CLD, MFR, FRM, GEG, EUG...are those USExpress routes staying and morphing into AE?

It isn't AA restarting service, it is US keeping service. No matter what is going to be painted on the planes, it doesn't mean that Parker and Co will run things the way AMR folks would do it today. Expect to keep seeing service from PHX to BUR, SBP, OAK, GEG, and EUG. This is the advantage of a PHX hub that can serve these markets via a shorter route than DFW could.

US doesn't service MFR. That is probably a codeshare with UA, as are PSC, and other places in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Colorado. FRM is probably on Great Lakes after getting PHX-LAS on US. No idea about Carlsbad.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 11): I know that AA cut their BUR-DFW flight just a year or two ago, but I still believe that they could shift over one of the around 10 daily LAX-DFW flights and make it work out of BUR.

Not only did AMR-AA keep 10 LAX-DFW while closing BUR, they also kept ONT-DFW intact (3 M83 + 1 M80).

Quoting commavia (Reply 13):BUR is the main route I could see switching back to DFW, for several reasons. First, DFW is obviously a far larger hub with far higher connectivity.

Assuning everyone who connects in PHX is going east of Dallas, it could make sense. On the other hand, it would be giving away traffic from So Cal to Dallas itself, unless the New Management wants to run DFW-SBA/SBP/BUR etc.

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 15):PHX will be scaled back all those people connecting in PHX to the midwest or east will now be flown to DFW better hub cheaper costs in DFWPHX will be scaled down.

DFW is not on the way to Chicago, therefore is an inferior hub to the Midwest. Worse even than SLC. Maybe DFW works to the midwest from elsewhere in the state of TX, but that is about it. Between So Cal and Chicago, #1 DEN, #2 LAS, #3 PHX, #4 SLC, #5 MSP, #6 DFW, #7 SFO, #8 IAH. DFW becomes a more tolerable connection for destinations to the east and south of Chicago, and not as well to the north and west.

The folks in STL were dealing with AMR-AA. The folks in PHX are dealing with new AAG management freshly transplanted from Tempe.

Quoting Winginit (Reply 18):Is that the 'fact'? And how can you be so certain that there are no plans to do so with the merger still in such primitive stages? Is your statement anything outside of speculation?

Let's see.... if Parker says that the carrier will be named "American" and HQ in the DFW area, then AA backers want to believe that, and also extrapolate it to mean that everything formerly AA will continue, including the new controversial livery. If Parker says anything about keeping anything that PMUS does, then according to AA fan.. he must be lying, right?

Can't have it both ways. If anything is a deliberate lie, then how does anyone know that the combined airline won't be named US Airways, or maybe even TWA?

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):Expect to keep seeing service from PHX to BUR, SBP, OAK, GEG, and EUG. This is the advantage of a PHX hub that can serve these markets via a shorter route than DFW could.

For those people that think PHX will be a similarly sized hub in 5-10 years should listen to how Parker describes PHX from a yield perspective. I was at a conference he attended and he described it as a "low-yield" hub. In fact, its is a lower yielding hub than DFW. It would be interesting to analyze the US segment fares through PHX versus AA through DFW. So while today he might say nothing will happen to PHX, he is doing this for political reasons. He needs to get the deal approved by regulators and needs the political support of Arizona congressional delegation. It's as simple as that.

Quoting GRUIAD (Reply 31):So while today he might say nothing will happen to PHX, he is doing this for political reasons. He needs to get the deal approved by regulators and needs the political support of Arizona congressional delegation.

Parker's promises to the PHX establishment sound like the same song and dance that DL gave to MSP. We'll keep x number of people here, we won't close offices or facilities, etc. How did that work out for MSP?

PHX will never end up like STL but bigger markets connecting in PHX will be over flown and the people will be put thru DFW & ORD smaller markets that make money will stay. PHX will prop even get a NRT flight

Large operation does not mean hub. This is not meant as a knock on Phoenix or PHX, or meant to imply that Phoenix resembles Pittsburgh or St. Louis (cities that are now arguably past their prime), but Phoenix will likely get drawn down. It will likely remain a focus city with nonstop flights to important business destinations, designed to cater to the higher yielding traveler and the business community there, but the hub will get drawn down.

I'd argue that Phoenix is a victim of its own success and is in a much better position to absorb a draw down than PIT or STL because of Southwest's huge operation there. The problem is that AA will not be able to compete with WN because of AA's higher costs.

I don't see PHXNRT happening short-term. Long term, just depends on how the hub/focus city shapes itself.

PHL and MIA will get their NRT connections sooner rather than later, however.

Miami is a much larger market to Asia than Phoenix; and Philadelphia, while around the same size as PHX to Asia, probably loses so much Asia traffic to Newark, that in actuality it's much larger than numbers show.

One thing not mentioned in this threat so far, is AAdvantage. Frequent flyers have no problem rearranging their schedules and paying slightly more, just for the miles. This must be an important factor, not only for Phoenix, but Charlotte and Philadelphia as well.

Quoting N737AA (Reply 29):Parker said that PHX will have a large operation post merger....."I owe it to them"

Well we are somewhat in debt to him too. Our airport would not be the way it is today if HP hadn't been so successful. As much as some of us think D.P. is a bit eccentric, he's a hell of a businessman. He knows what he is doing.

I think I recall reading some editorials that said post-HP/US merger that PHX was going to get cut too............................
Nyaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 32): That's what I'm getting at...but the folks who think that PHX won't get touched or will actually INCREASE are flat out dreaming.

This comes when many city leaders, airport officials, and intel are stating that PHX will see an increase in service. Suuuure we're dreaming

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 42): Memphis will be an integral hub in the combined network of Delta and Northwest airlines following a proposed merger between the two companies, Delta CEO Richard Anderson told a packed house Thursday morning at the Holiday Inn-University of Memphis.

Why do people like comparing PHX to MEM? There are huge differences between the two. MEM's leaders were practically talking out of their arse

And that is the key. US needs PHX for both connections and O&D. AA does not. The connections PHX now handles are there in large part because US has had no choice - it was either PHX or nothing. AA has various options that are as good or better - largely DFW, and to some extent ORD and LAX - can all handle portions of the connections PHX now does.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 16):The combined company will not pull down PHX operations noticeably.

With respect, I think that is naive to put it mildly.

These two facts are, to me, beyond argument:

1. The combined unit costs of the new AA will be materially higher than US' independent unit costs are today.
2. The network of the new AA will be far less reliant on PHX to handle connecting flows than the US network today.

To me, both of those facts point to a "noticeable" pull down in capacity in PHX. I'm not saying PHX will turn into just a spoke, but to think that PHX is going to retain a 250+ daily departure hub with 2/3 of those departures being mainline seems to fly in the face of inescapable economic reality.

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 19):The reason for a scale back is not because combined traffic is diminishing, it's because many cities from PHX are better served through DFW.

So is Las Vegas. That doesn't mean its an ideal hub for a network airline.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):DFW is not on the way to Chicago, therefore is an inferior hub to the Midwest. Worse even than SLC. Maybe DFW works to the midwest from elsewhere in the state of TX, but that is about it. Between So Cal and Chicago, #1 DEN, #2 LAS, #3 PHX, #4 SLC, #5 MSP, #6 DFW, #7 SFO, #8 IAH. DFW becomes a more tolerable connection for destinations to the east and south of Chicago, and not as well to the north and west.

That logic is wrong for multiple reasons.

First, with regard specifically to Chicago, many of the largest western U.S. markets (LAX, SFO, SJC, SAN, RNO, LAS, SNA, SEA, TUS, etc.) in question that US now connects through PHX already have nonstop flights to ORD on AA today.

Second, concluding that DFW is "an inferior hub to the Midwest" purely on the basis that it is "not on the way to Chicago" is meaningless. Even notwithstanding the first logical failure, purely comparing the geographic location of DFW in relation to any given city misses a large part of the point. The question is not how "out of the way" DFW is, but if it is too far out of the way for AA to still retain connecting flows absent PHX connections. And in almost all cases, the answer is - at least to me - likely yes. Most of the connections PHX now handles from the west to the midwest can likely be handled just fine over DFW (or LAX). Indeed, AA already has a substantial presence in the west-midwest market today, and that's with competition from various competing hubs including PHX.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 34):Parker's promises to the PHX establishment sound like the same song and dance that DL gave to MSP.

And that DL gave to CVG and MEM, and that UA gave to CLE, and that US gave to PIT, and that AA gave to STL, and on and on. Businesses are businesses, and their in business to make money. As such, they will tell idiot politicians whatever they want to hear, and then they'll ultimately do whatever makes economic sense for the enterprise. Doug Parker's alleged commitments to the PHX hub will ultimately amount to little compared to his legally-binding fiduciary responsibility to shareholders - that latter "commitment" will win every time.

So if - as I and many others predict - AA in a few years determines that its shareholders would be better served by reducing AA's exposure to the low yields, intense competition, and network duplication of a PHX hub and shrink that operation, Doug Parker's "promises" today will not matter, just as they haven't at the other airlines whose CEOs have made basically the exact same promises.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 36):While I'd like to see their HI flights stay, I'm not sure it's justifiable with LAX an hour away. Why not just connect them through there?

My understanding is the local market is substantial. I could definitely see PHX retaining at a minimum 1 daily HNL flight, and depending on the ultimate size of AA's PHX operation, also possibly a 2nd HNL flight and 1 daily OGG flight.

"City leaders" and "airport officials" are hardly realistc, unbiased, dispassionate sources of "intel" when it comes to airlines' plans. So whatever "intel" Doug Parker has been sharing with them, the Arizona Republic, or anyone else today is based solely on the economic realities as they exist today. In a few years, those economic realities will al be different - only then will we know where the PHX hub ultimately stands.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 41):I think I recall reading some editorials that said post-HP/US merger that PHX was going to get cut too............................
Nyaaaaahaha

When Parker said, "PHX will have a large operation post merger," he didn't say that PHX wouldn't receive any cuts. While I agree there are some connections which can be done better via PHX than through other hubs, there are a whole lot of connections which are done worse through PHX, especially to/from the Pacific NW, as has been stated in the other hub threads.

The major reason why I've consistently said that I didn't feel ORD would be de-emphasized in this merger, is that I believe cities such as PDX will see ORD service again, and cities like RNO will see ORD service increased, since AA could handle many connections to midwest and eastern points better at ORD than either via DFW or PHX.

LAX to Hawaii is fine, but AA is touting that the world will be "one connection away." How's that going to be possible if they have to make a double connection out of smaller, airports in CO, AZ, UT and NM? The fact that AE flies or used to fly LAX-PHX, TUS, ABQ, ELP, BOI, RNO may be a clear indication that that they are going to scrap PHX because they have tested the waters from both LAX and PHX... both cannot work and it would be a lot cheaper padding in some extra cities in LAX than keep PHX a hub. All AE needs to do is add a few cities that will not be overflown to DFW from LAX and PHX will be a relic of the past. Like OMA and MSP... go back into COS, OAK, SBP, EUG, GEG, MFR, YVR (AA flew to all of these places when SJC was first their hub). It also begs the question, if PHX does get scrapped, will LAX see new service to AK and a large build-up to MX? I see the EMB175/CR9 being a huge player in the LAX market to longer, thinner, Midwest routes. What are the legs on those planes, can they make MSP or OMA from LAX.

PHX is my old stomping ground and I love it to pieces, but it would not be that hard to move 6-7 cities to LAX with larger Eagle service to make it palpable. People who say PHX will never die, we also said that about PanAm, TWA, EASTERN, WESTEN, NORTHWEST, CONTINENTAL, TEXASAIR, USAIR, PEIDMONT, PSA, AIRCAL, REPUBLIC, OZARK, PSA, NATIONAL AIRLINES, ALOHA, PEOPLE'S EXPRESS, CPAIR, CANADIAN AIRLINES, WARDAIR, MEXICANA (yes there are smaller ones too like RENOAIR, NEWYORK AIR, AIR FLORIDA, EASTWIND, WESTERN PACIFIC, JET AMERICA, HUGHES AIRWEST)...these airlines were all staples and molded our commercial aviation in North America to what it is today. Now we have WN/FL, UA, DL, VX, AA, AS, B6, HA, F9...which we all know F9 is on borrowed time. Much different outlook. I also predict AS to purchase another carrier in the next 5 years to stay competitive, or be purchased.